POSITIVE LEADERSHIP

from NATIONAL JOURNAL

Common Sense - "Common Sense" is an outside the Beltway perspective on American politics and culture.

Quarterbacking Our Country: Tebow Style
by Matthew Dowd

Updated: December 12, 2011 4:00 p.m.

Last night, watching Denver quarterback Tim Tebow’s post-game press appearance and President Obama’s interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, I was struck by the fact that one man is offering his team (and the country actually) the leadership they need while the other is trapped in traditional discourse and scoring political points.

Tebow is not even close to the most physically talented quarterback in the NFL (and he probably isn’t even the most physically talented quarterback on his own team), but he has taken a team sitting in the cellar and lifted it up to playoff contention.

Do I buy into some intervention by God because Tebow is a man of incredible religious faith? No. I do believe there is a divine presence in every one of us and in every thing, and the power of that presence remains a mystery of the ages. It can’t be proven or disproven by an intellectual conversation or scientific method, but it is hard not to accept if you are a person of faith and connection to something outside our mere humanity. Yet that is not what this Denver rise and winning streak is about.

First, I would be very surprised if God is concerned about whether one NFL team is winning and whether one is losing. Even if God was concerned, I would hope he would have helped my hometown team -- the Detroit Lions -- who have had no success in the Super Bowl era.

Second, there are many players of faith on every team in the NFL, so I don’t think the Creator is picking and choosing which player or team or faith He likes more or less.

I do think this Tebow boomlet is about faith. And it’s about confidence. And leadership. And humility -- a humbleness born of strength and conviction. It is about Tebow’s faith in his own teammates. It is about his faith and confidence in his own organization. It is about him acknowledging his own weaknesses and failings and mistakes and understanding that if his team looks good, then he looks good.

Obama, and so too the Republican candidates for president, can learn a lot from what is going on in the Mile High City. Our economy, and this country, are struggling with huge deficits of confidence and faith. We need a leader who can bring us together, exude confidence in us as a team, and lead us to where we need to go in the 21st century. A leader who is willing to admit mistakes and approach politics not by pointing fingers or scoring points but by helping us all be better people.

Take a look at Obama’s latest interview. It does not make you feel better about where we are heading. You don’t feel like we are going to win under his leadership. He points fingers and refuses to admit his own mistakes or weaknesses. I often wonder where is the Barack Obama of the 2007 and 2008 campaign. That Obama was much more like the leader we need at this time. He offered hope, he had soaring rhetoric, he offered a change from the bitter politics in Washington, and he made us feel we could win.

Tebow is the kind of leader for his football team that our country needs at this crucial moment in history. Yes, the Denver Broncos streak will probably end, and the odds are a team like the Green Bay Packers will win the Super Bowl. But no matter the outcome, Tebow has shown what faith, and confidence and humility can do for a team of limited skills that was losing consistently before. This is exactly what President Franklin Roosevelt and President Reagan understood about leadership.

This economy, and our country, do not need more programs out of Washington, D.C., or legislation from Congress, or tax cuts for the wealthy, or more spending on government stimulus. What citizens and businesses need is a leader who can raise us all up to a level we didn’t know we had in us, give us confidence in ourselves, give us a common goal to work toward, and make us believe in and have faith in ourselves again.

It seems this is a leadership lesson we keep having to learn over and over again through our country’s history. It is so easy to forget how successes were achieved along the way by Kennedy-style exhortations such as “we are going to the moon.” It is so easy to default into failing Washington-style, us-against-them, to try and get short-term political success.

But maybe a quarterback who seems as much boy as man can show us all, including the candidates for president, how to win and how to get our country back on track. And how to have a little fun along the way. Now that is a leader I would enthusiastically go in the huddle with.

Earning it...

My favorite QB from my grade school years....the scrambler....the Viking....opines on NFL vs Teacher's Union.

Imagine the National Football League in an alternate reality. Each player's salary is based on how long he's been in the league. It's about tenure, not talent. The same scale is used for every player, no matter whether he's an All-Pro quarterback or the last man on the roster. For every year a player's been in this NFL, he gets a bump in pay. The only difference between Tom Brady and the worst player in the league is a few years of step increases. And if a player makes it through his third season, he can never be cut from the roster until he chooses to retire, except in the most extreme cases of misconduct. Let's face the truth about this alternate reality: The on-field product would steadily decline. Why bother playing harder or better and risk getting hurt?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576601232986845102.html

Prayer on 9-11...

The mayor of NYC may have excluded clergy from the memorial ceremonies, yet religion found its way into the services. Both President Obama and President Bush spoke the words of President Lincoln, all of which centered on religion. Most people reading the names also referred to God. There is no doubt that this country is rooted in religious freedom and religious values. God Bless America.

Earthquake or Hurricane??

The east coast experienced an earthquake on Tues, 8/23 and a hurricane on Sat/Sun, 8/27-28. Quite unusual events for the east coast, DC, Phili, NYC, and New England. Both events came and went quickly, leaving some damage and minimal loss of life. All is well. All was well. And all continues to be well. However, the media coverage of the hurricane was relentless (more so than the hurricane itself!). And the politicians couldn't resist instructing us about every little detail and ensuring us that they were there to 'help us'. The earthquake came without warning, had limited impact, and was actually pretty cool for those who felt it. We didn't have days-upon-days of 24/7 media coverage speculating about what could happen. We didn't have politicians assuring us that they are 'there for us' and will provide everything we need (implication: we are too stupid to take care of ourselves). But after both events, we will have politicians proposing programs and more spending somehow related to 'protecting us'. Enough!

Today's technology is wonderful. Would it have been good to have warning of the earthquake? Maybe. Would it have changed the outcome? No. Was there an overreaction to the hurricane? Yes. Should we have backed off? Probably not. Better to be careful than careless.

A retrospective look at the earthquake informs us that east coast events are different from west coast events for a variety of reasons (see excerpts below). Therefore, our earthquake was felt from NC to NH. Interesting stuff. Let's take the opportunity to learn something new.

Given a choice between experiencing an earthquake or a hurricane again, one might choose the earthquake simply to avoid the overblown media onslaught as well as the political parenting we experienced in the lead up to Hurricane Irene. Thanks, but we're adults, and we can take care of ourselves. Seems pretty logical to me...

Tuesday's quake was felt across a wide swath of the region because the rock formations deep beneath the surface are old and cold, and so transmit seismic waves more efficiently than thick layers of ancient sediment.

While the strength of the quake was unusual, the wide spread of the shock waves was common for the East Coast, according to Peggy Hellweg, a research seismologist at the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory in California. This is largely due to the difference in the terrain, Hellweg said in a telephone interview. "Our ground is all of this chopped-up stuff ... like a pile of marbles," Hellweg said of California's geology, which means that the waves from a quake don't spread out all that far. In the Eastern United States, she said, "What you've got there is gorgeous bedrock and ... the waves propagate beautifully."

Another difference between the East and West U.S. coasts is that the West Coast is over the boundary between two active tectonic plates, the North American and the Pacific, and the force of these plates sliding against each other generates quakes regularly, Fisher said. In the East, she said, "There's no driving engine in terms of the two plates sliding past each other ... so that's why it's much more unusual."

They STRENUOUSLY object...

OK, now that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the indivicual mandate in Obamacare, the White House issued a brief statement, part of which states: "We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand." Well then...I guess it won't stand. Hardly the case! The decision written by Judge Vinson of the Federal Appeals Court in FL was impeccable and worth the read (see second link below). He lays out the case that the individual mandate is inextricably linked to the rest of the legislation, and therefore one can't move forward without the other. The mandate IS unconstitutional. Let's hope the Supremes keep the two issues linked and overturn the entire mess.

11th CIRCUIT OF APPEALS: “We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html

JUDGE VINSON: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."
http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/News/2009/1/PublishingImages/vinson-1-31-2011.pdf

Christie is the real deal

Gov Chris Christie proposed and got passed legislation that will save our state $130 billion over 30 yrs by implementing sanity. Public sector workers will contribute to their pension and healthcare like we do in the privat sector (albeit their contributions will still be less as a %....for now). Other Govs have instituted similar legislation (VA, OH, WI), but they had a majoirty of their own party in their legislatures. Christie did it with a Dem majority. Wow. NJ may finally be on the right path!! Can we dare hope to be red by Nov 2012??

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/christie_wins_again_sLgLIMkudd869izxv01icJ

Incompetent in Chief

Can you imagine if George W. Bush did this??!! Pres Obama presented the Medal of Honor to the FIRST LIVING RECIPIENT of the medal LAST YEAR, but he couldn't remember his name. He confused him with a soldier from Ft Drum, who was indeed killed in the line of duty while speaking to the troops at Ft Drum, and to whom Pres obama presented the Medal of Honor posthumously in 2009. This is unbelievable. It confirms that he cares nothing for the military, except to use them when he gets pushed into military action by the UN and NATO (Libya) because really now, the US isn't actually in charge of its own military decisions, is it?? Or when he can use them as a political tool, i.e. the hasty withdrawl of troops from Afghanistan, just in time for Election Day! Obama is imploding rapidly, but with the state controlled media feeding info to most citizens, it will be a while before people realize it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/obama-flubs-medal-of-honor-winner.html

Why aren't banks lending?? gee....I wonder...

Mises.org, the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory, contains many interesting and in-depth articles. Although many of us are up-to-date on political issues, the nitty-gritty details of the country's economic woes are not well understood. And the government certainly prefers it that way. With banks back on their feet, having paid back TARP bailout 'loans' with interest, why aren't people able to get mortgages? The linked article reveals that there is an incestuous symbiotic relationship between government and the banks, and WE the little people are simply getting screwed. Serfdom, anyone??

(excerpt from the article...)
This chart represents the amount of money our nation's banks keep on deposit with the Federal Reserve. So you see, the newly created money is being held by the banks, who instead of loaning it out to folks who would like to refinance their houses and businesses who might expand and hire (which is what the Fed intended), they (the banks) just redeposit the free money back with the Fed, and earn massive amounts of interest.

What? Are you kidding me? The banks got bailed out from billions of dollars in bad loans that they issued, then they got literally $1.2 trillion (as you can see from the chart above) of free money that they then turned around and invested in Treasuries, the interest on which is one of Obama's biggest line-item budget expenses. Are we living in an Ayn Rand novel? How would you like to get free money to invest, the interest on which is guaranteed by the government's taxation authority (and guns)?

http://mises.org/daily/5223/Charting-the-Course-to-7-Gas

Snarker in Chief...

Obama is simply not Presidential material. He put on a good show during the 2008 campaign, and the country had high hopes for him. However, he has blown it. He never unifies, he always divides. So much for the post-partisan President. He can't seem to realize that his $800B stimulus, Obamacare, and running $1+ TRILLION deficits PER YEAR are actually the reason our economy has not yet recovered. Never has a President blamed his predecessor as much as Obama; it's getting quite tiresome. ("W" had enough class to bring Obama and McCain to the White House to get their agreement on the TARP Bailout package of $800B, of which W released approximately half and left the rest for his successor.) Get over it Bam; it's your watch now. Better wake up before it's too late. However, leadership and decisiveness are not garnered overnight, and it is likely too late for Obama. He simply doesn't have those qualities. Christie, Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Trump - wonder why they are seen as viable 2012 candidates? They lead, they succeed, and they provide straight talk to the American people. People gravitate toward decisive leaders, not snarky politicians who stoke flames and constantly place blame on everyone but themselves.

Obama’s Character Defect
Peter Wehner 04.15.2011 - Commentary Online
In his remarks last night, President Obama had this to say: “When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he’s just being America’s accountant . . . this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill—but wasn’t paid for. So it’s not on the level.”

What a nice ending to an ugly week.

Put out of your mind the fact that Bush’s tax cuts, especially the ones in 2003, led to economic growth that in 2007 helped to trim the deficit to barely more than one percent of GDP. Set aside the fact that the prescription drug plan Ryan supported was less than half the cost of what Democrats were proposing. Forget too that the free-market reforms helped the new plan beat its cost projections by around 40 percent. The point is that Obama has decided to get down and dirty this week rather than to engage the fiscal debate in a serious and honest fashion. Even Mark Halperin of Time magazine, a fine, fair, but not terribly unsympathetic-to-Obama reporter, agreed that Obama crossed a line in his speech this week by saying, in Halperin’s words, “They’re not American in their proposal.”

It isn’t enough to say Obama is doing what others in the past have done, although Obama seems to do it more often and with more relish. He predicated his 2008 campaign on putting an end to what he called “the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” It is Obama who, upon accepting the nomination of the Democratic Party, declared that “one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism.” And it was Obama who promised, on the night of his election, “I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

It was also President Obama who cautioned earlier this year, in his remarks after the aftermath of the Tucson massacre, “[A]t a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized—at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do—it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” And it was Obama who told Republicans at a retreat in January 2010, “[W]e’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s—the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.’ ”

But now that he finds himself intellectually outmatched by Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, and in a precarious situation when it comes to his reelection, Obama is dropping his past civility sermons down the memory hole. Decency and respect for others has suddenly become passé. Talking about our disagreements without being disagreeable has been overtaken by events. Not impugning the character of the opposition is fine as long as it’s convenient, but it’s to be ignored whenever necessary. Challenging people’s character, their motivations, and their patriotism is back in fashion. And so, in Barack Obama’s world, the Republican vision for America consists of crumbling roads, collapsing bridges, young people unable to go to college, grandparents unable to afford nursing home care, and—this one is particularly classy—autistic and Down’s Syndrome children will have to fend for themselves.

Incompetence in a president is not a character defect, but acting so crudely and cynically is.

Oops...Israel was right after all...

Whoops! The JUDGE from the UN Human Rights Council that investigated charges that Israel deliberately targeted civilians in the brief war with Hamas a few years ago has CHANGED HIS MIND. Will the UN do anything with this new information? No, the original report made Israel look bad, and that is just fine with the UN. Can you imagine IF the positions were reversed? A UN Council would never have found that Hamas deliberately targeted civilians (which they actually do). There would have been some kind of 'reason' that would have justified it. THEN, if it was found that Hamas had indeed not deliberately targeted civilians, there would have been news coverage galore.....How could the UN have been so insensitive? What can the world community do to make it up to Hamas? How does this reflect on world values? Is this really the world's fault....aren't we all to blame?? It would go on, and on, and on..... BUT, NO. This revelation about Israel is getting very little coverage. Who cares? It's just a smear against Israel. And that's allowed, right? At the UN it is not only allowed, it is expected.

Mr. Goldstone’s Regrets
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff Wednesday, April 6, 2011

In the midst of the continuing bombardment of southern Israel, the jurist who headed the U.N. uman Rights Council fact-finding mission into the Gaza war of 2008-2009 has now recanted his damning assessment of Israeli conduct. “If I had known then what I know now,” wrote Richard Goldstone on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

Goldstone, a retired chief justice of South Africa’s Constitutional Court who had also prosecuted war criminals from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, now, he wrote, has the benefit of a subsequent report by another panel named by the U.N. to follow up on his report. That second report found “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operation misconduct in Gaza” while Hamas officials “have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”

The astonishing thing is, of course, that Goldstone found this somehow surprising — that Israel with its long-standing respect for the rule of law would investigate possible military misconduct, while Hamas, which knows only the rule of the gun, would not.

Of course, the government of Israel did itself no favors by announcing ahead of time it had no intention of cooperating with Goldstone’s investigation. That was just plain stupid.

Goldstone for his part conceded the “history of bias against Israel” by the U.N. Human Rights Council might have had something to do with that. Now he calls upon that council to condemn the continuing rocket bombardment of southern Israel permitted by Hamas and, as he put it, “the cold-blooded slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds” on the West Bank.

Frankly, we’re not holding our breath on that one, and neither should Goldstone. And a spokesman for the Council said of the now disputed report, “U.N. reports are not canceled on the basis of an op-ed in a newspaper.”

That's My Guy...

I love this guy.....Paul Ryan has the financial know-how, the political will, and the personality to sell this initiative. He went toe-to-toe with Obama during the healthcare bipartisan conference charade (it was more like a lecture...remember? "I won"). Paul Ryan is the ONLY person in DC that is actually trying to DO something, rather than simply trying to preserve the status quo and/or keep their seat. Of course Ryan will be pilloried by the Dems and their patsies in the media, but he is moving forward. Go, Paul, Go!! And in 2012, Run, Paul, Run!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576242612172357504.html#

Enough already....!!!

Obama the Ubiquitous!! We can't get away from this guy! I don't begrudge the President, or anyone, the fun of selecting teams for their brackets for March Madness. It's fun! But for goodness sake, this guy has no concept of the image he is projecting. This is quite paradoxical since during his campaign his image was quite carefully crafted. However, the curtain has been pulled back and we have come to learn that he is ALL image, no substance. Now we see that he is also losing focus on his image. He appears to be unaware of the detatched image he is presenting to the world routinely - Iran 2009, voices of the American people against healthcare in 2009, voices of the voters against govt spending in 2010, Egypt, Bahrain, Lybia, Japan, and a deluge of poor economic indicators within the last few months. Sports are great, some (like football) are even wonderful! Participation by the President should always be welcome. George W. Bush had a little league field constructed on a portion of the White House lawn and sponsored games for kids every year he was in office. Did MLB or ESPN cover that? Did they fawn over the fact that the President was so interested in baseball and the kids? Funny, I don't recall that....do you??
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2011/news/story?id=6222176

Why so hesitant?

Why is it that Obama is so hesitant to condemn leaders in countries that are clearly our enemies, like Iran and Lybia, but is quick to condemn and demand concessions from an ally like Egypt (albeit run by a dictator that didn't pay attention to the needs of his citizens)? It's disconcerting that Obama rarely defends Israel, and continually shuns Great Britain as well as Australia. But yet he remains mum when people take to the streets in Iran in 2009 to demand some precious God-given rights be recognized by their oppressive government. What seem to be no-brainers appear to be difficult for Obama. So currently we are left with two enemies, which we had already in Lybia and Iran, and one ally that could turn into an enemy in Egypt depending on who eventually runs that country. What kind of foreign policy is that?? Is his reluctance because he doesn't believe in the God-given rights the people are demanding? Does he believe that all rights come from the government? Is his reluctance because he doesn't believe that the United States is the best example to support these freedoms because we are inherently "good" or "exceptional"? Quite concerning that these questions are even being asked about the President of the United States.

Welcome to 1984

The thought police are in full swing in the federal courts. A judge is claiming that your mental decision not to purchase healthcare is activity. Hmmmm. Thoughts of 1984 or Minority Report come to mind. And not only is it activity, if you don't choose the right way, you have to pay a fee or tax or whatever they are calling it these days!! Rich Lowry explains further below. So if I think about buying a beautiful mansion, do I have to pay taxes on it?? And, if a tree falls in the woods, do all non-Sierra Club members get fined?


March 5, 2011
The Scariest Defense for ObamaCare
By Rich Lowry

'I can take care of my enemies all right," Warren Harding once said. "But my friends, my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"

In the sense that so irked Harding, Judge Gladys Kessler is a great good friend of ObamaCare. The US district-court judge in Washington, DC, delivered a more telling blow against the law in the course of ruling it constitutional than critics have in assailing it as a travesty.

At issue is the individual mandate. Two other district-court judges have struck it down on grounds that Congress doesn't have the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to require that everyone buy health insurance. If someone doesn't purchase insurance, he hasn't done anything. He isn't engaged in activity that may or may not affect interstate commerce, but in sheer inactivity. Never before has anyone thought Congress could regulate nonevents.

The easy-to-grasp distinction between an activity and inactivity is one of the most powerful legal arguments of ObamaCare's opponents. But they hadn't yet run up against a jurist as ingenious as Judge Kessler. She brushes aside the activity/inactivity distinction because not doing something is a choice and therefore "mental activity."

Why hadn't someone thought of this before? The sophists in Eric Holder's Justice Department must be embarrassed that they didn't themselves dredge up this killer rejoinder.

The fundamental question in the ObamaCare case is whether there is any constraint on the ability of Congress to regulate economic activity. Do we still live in a system of dual sovereignty, split between the federal government and the states, as set out by the Constitution? Does the federal government only have certain enumerated powers? Is anything beyond its ambit? Judge Kessler's argument is a ringing "no" on all three counts.

Kessler, a liberal Clinton appointee, takes what has been a Commerce Clause case and practically makes it a First Amendment matter. It's the most self-undermining defense of the constitutionality of a dubious statute since then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the Supreme Court that under campaign-finance reform, the government could ban certain pamphlets. Kessler, like Kagan before her, does everyone the favor of clarifying the issue.

Kessler writes, "It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something."

When President Obama is faulted during the next Mideast crisis for his passivity, he can shoot back that he's really quite active -- he's deciding not to do anything. We now know that this constitutes robust -- muscular, even -- activity.

Under the Kessler principle, there's no nonconduct that the federal government can't reach. Every day, most Americans engage in nonactivities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler or not to buy a Snuggie, you've impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We've gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something.

Long ago, the Commerce Clause got stretched beyond recognition. In 1942, the Supreme Court used it to uphold a law penalizing a farmer for growing wheat in excess of his approved allotment, even though it was for his own consumption. At least the poor sap was doing something. According to Kessler, Congress could also punish him for acting on a thought not to grow wheat.

Opponents of ObamaCare say that if it's blessed by the courts, there will no longer be any limiting principle on federal regulatory power. If that seems far-fetched, behold the mental activities of one Judge Gladys Kessler.

Thumbs Down on SOTU...

Excerpts and links to three articles below. The general consensus is that Obama gave a boring and empty SOTU speech last night. He blathered on and on, like most President's do, but what he actually said was either useless or harmful to our nation. He never seems to have the best interests of Americans in mind, but he tries to sound like he does. The American people aren't buying it anymore....

1) "Obama does not seem like a leader anymore." (Ben Stein is not amused...)
There were two glimpses of the old Obama -- when he slammed "subsidies" for oil companies, which of course do not get any subsidies, but have business deductions the way every other business does, he sounded every bit like the envious skinny Harvard man he once was. When he railed against tax breaks that he considered identical to government spending, that was outright socialism. That concept implies that all the income in the nation belongs to the state, and that if we let working people keep any of it, that is the same as a government expenditure. The opposite is true. The income belongs to the people, and they allow government to have some of it. But, of course, the servant has become the master now.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/26/obama-and-the-bodysnatchers

2) (Obama in outerspace...)
The sense of national purpose that followed the Sputnik launch was not based on an abstract sense of the need for better education programs; it was a national security emergency. In those days lagging behind in the technology race could literally be fatal. Mr. Obama has failed to conjure the same sense of looming disaster, excepting the national state of alarm over his irresponsible deficit spending.
Maybe when the red flag is flying on the lunar surface the United States will have a true Sputnik moment, the shocked realization that while the rest of mankind is making giant leaps, Obama’s America can manage only small steps.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/26/editorial-obamas-spaced-out-speech/

3) "Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth." Paul Ryan (R), WI
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100073619/the-obama-presidency-remains-in-a-dangerous-state-of-denial/

Boring!!!

We have been hearing the SAME SOTU speeches for our ENTIRE lives! Deficit, education, energy, budget, we love our military, blah, blah, blah. I will vote for the politician who says the following: 1) flat tax, 2) less regulation, 3) education is a local issue, 4) we WILL tackle the big three: Med / Med / SS. But instead we hear: here is how WE will spend YOUR money. I'm just completely sick of it. One bright spot: Obama FINALLY recognized the US contribution to the Chilean mine rescue. Maybe the US is exceptional after all.... :-)

Christie 1, Schumer 0

from the NY Post... Gotta love the candor of Chris Christie. He SAYS what the middle class is THINKING.

Christie 1, Schumer 0
January 23, 2011

Sen. Chuck Schumer last week lit into New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for pulling the plug on that $8.7 billion trans-Hudson rail tunnel.

“A terrible, terrible decision,” Schumer told a Crain’s breakfast.

Schumer being Schumer, of course, he sees in Christie’s decision the coming of a national apocalypse — a “turning point,” he said, that historians will one day look back on as the day when we “stopped looking toward the future.”

Hyperbole, thy name is Chuck Schumer.

Fortunately, Chris Christie is not one to be intimidated, even by so formidable a presence as Chuck Schumer’s — and, even more fortunately, he can give as good as he gets.

Back when the governor called a halt to the project, he cited the fact that its cost had already swelled to $11 billion and counting — with his state on the hook for $2.7 billion, plus 50% of any cost overruns.

That would hike Jersey’s liability to more than $5 billion — money the troubled Garden State simply doesn’t have.

In response to Schumer, Christie noted the difference between a governor and a senator. “Their job is easy,” he said of lawmakers like Schumer. “They get to sit in front of microphones and bloviate. I’ve got to balance budgets.”

Asking where the money would come from, Christie added: “If [Schumer] wants to offer me $5 billion, then maybe we can have a conversation.

“Until then,” said the governor, “he should mind his manners on the other side of the Hudson River.”

Ouch — but point very well taken.

Senators — especially Democratic senators — love to go on about huge projects and the jobs they’d create.

But when it comes to explaining how to pay for them, they grow silent.

However badly the tunnel is needed, it does not justify a project that was already running as high as 60% over its already exorbitant projected budget.

With absolutely no end to the escalation in sight.

Chris Christie, unlike Chuck Schumer, recognized a boondoggle when he saw it.

And, unlike Schumer, his first instinct was to protect the taxpayers.

Jan 20, 1961 - JFK

We all know this famous passage: "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." BUT did you know this one? "And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLmiOEk59n8

STOP THE CHARADE!

This idea of "sitting together" at the State of the Union is ridiculous! It's simply a ploy by the Dems to: 1) not let the viewing public see how the Rep numbers have grown, and 2) prolong the constant whining about 'bipartisanship' (which means agreeing w/the Dems and the media). Contact your Republican Representative and Senator, and tell them to resist this Dem publicity stunt. Reminiscent of when the Senate was split, 50-50, with a Rep Pres & VP. The Reps 'shared' everything w/the Dems and never acted like the Majority Party. Excuse me, when the Pres & VP are Rep, the Senate is Rep. Who breaks a tie in the Senate? The VP! Memo to Reps in the House: act like the Majority that you are, lest you loose it in '12!!
http://house.gov/
http://senate.gov/

DO YOU HEAR US??

Nancy, Harry, Barack, DO YOU HEAR US?? (It's like the scene in Horton Hears a Who where all the Who's start to scream "We are here! We are here!" so they are not put into the stew!!) Since a multitude of polls showing that 60+% of the American people were AGAINST Healthcare Reform didn't seem to resonate in DC, perhaps a poll showing that 75+% of the American people are AGAINST out-of-control DC spending will resonate. Time will tell.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028612-503544.html

Americans Get It...

Even Salon (yes, Salon!) is reacting to the vitriolic fingerpointing after the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords in AZ...

"We know that no connection between Loughner and Tea Paty politics has been established, and what we have learned about him strongly suggests that he lacked a recognizable political identity. He looks to be a deranged young man and it's unclear if he was even aware of the political debate/conversation that the rest of us follow every day. There's just no evidence of any connection between Loughner and Palin, the Tea Party and conservative movement."

http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/culture_violence_giffords_poll

A True Hero

The United States has lost a true hero. One less in the Band of Brothers. RIP and Godspeed, Major Dick Winters.

(from Yahoo news.com....)

When people asked whether he was a hero, he echoed the words of his World War II buddy Mike Ranney: "No, but I served in a company of heroes."

"He was a good man, a very good man," Guarnere said. "I would follow him to hell and back. So would the men from E Company."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_en_tv/us_obit_winters

The Constitution...it's so passé..

Once again, the New York Times knows all: bills should not be tied to Constitutional principles (why not??), a bill to reduce spending to 2008 levels has no chance of passing (yes, it does!), and apparently they don't seem to realize that the 13th Amendment is in effect (it is, since Jan 1865). The Constitution is a great document, relatively easy to understand, meant to establish bedrock principles, yet to evolve via the Amendment process when the overwhelming sentiment of the country demands it, not when one party finds it to be an impediment to achieving their goal of socialism and equal outcomes for all.

January 4, 2011 - NY Times - Opinion
Pomp, and Little Circumstance - A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber. And in one particularly self-important flourish, the new speaker, John Boehner, arranged to have his office staff “sworn in” on Tuesday by the chief justice of the United States.

Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.

The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate — presumably to the Republicans’ Tea Party supporters — that things are about to be done very differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation’s foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it. The new House leadership says this is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.

All of this, though, is simply eyewash — the equivalent of a flag-draped background to a speech — compared with the actual legislation the Republicans plan to pass. And though much of that has no possibility of being enacted, it does suggest the depth of the struggle to come. The bill tauntingly titled the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” has nothing to do with increasing employment and will never reach the Senate floor, but shows that the leadership is willing to threaten the hard-fought access to health care for millions of the uninsured, just to make a political point.

On budgetary issues, the House Republicans’ new rules bypass the chamber and even their own Budget Committee to give all power to set spending levels to the committee’s new chairman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. It is hard to imagine how long such an aggrandizement of power will last in a contentious body like the House. The plans by Mr. Ryan and his colleagues to simply cut all spending back to 2008 levels also have no chance of being enacted.

The one good thing about these meaningless rules and bills is that they finally seem to be prodding House Democrats into standing up for their own programs as they enter the minority. Democrats have begun to remind Americans of what is at stake in repealing health care: popular provisions like the elimination of lifetime coverage limits, insurance under parents’ policies up to age 26, and coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The Republicans’ antics are a ghastly waste of time at a moment when the nation is expecting real leadership from Congress, and suggest that the new House leadership is still unable to make tough choices. Voters, no less than drama critics, prefer substance to overblown theatrics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/opinion/05wed1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion